Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:56:05.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SCHUMPETER VS. KEYNES: “IN THE LONG RUN NOT ALL OF US ARE DEAD”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

ARTHUR M. DIAMOND JR.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Keynes was viewed by himself, Schumpeter, and most others as the most highly esteemed economist of the twentieth century. However, Schumpeter is receiving increasing attention from mainstream economists. A few specific examples are discussed, and the citation time series for Keynes and Schumpeter are compared for the period 1956 through 2006. Generally, Keynes receives more citations than Schumpeter from 1956 through roughly the mid-1990s. But subsequently until 2006, Schumpeter received more citations than Keynes.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 531 - 541
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baily, Martin Neil. 2001. “Macroeconomic Implications of the New Economy.” Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of the Kansas City, 201–68. [First presented at the Jackson Hole Conference of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, August 2001.]Google Scholar
Baumol, William J. 2001. “Innovation and Creative Destruction.” In McKnight, Lee W., Vaaler, Paul M., and Katz, Raul L., eds. Creative Destruction: Business Survival Strategies in the Global Internet Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 21–38.Google Scholar
Baumol, William J. 2002. The Free Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Markus C., Ulrich Esslinger, Hans, Hedtke, Ulrich, and Knudsen, Thorbjørn. 2005. “Development by Joseph A. Schumpeter: Introduction.” Journal of Economic Literature 43 (1) (March): 108–111.Google Scholar
Becker, Markus C. and Knudsen, Thorbjørn. 2005. “The Role of Entrepreneurship in Economic and Technological Development: The Contribution of Schumpeter to Understanding Entrepreneurship.” Centre for Research on Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurs Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
DeLong, J. Bradford and Summers, Lawrence H.. 2001. “The ‘New Economy’: Background, Questions and Speculations.” Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review (Fourth Quarter): 29–59. [Originally presented at the Jackson Hole Conference of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, August 2001.]Google Scholar
Diamond, Arthur M. Jr. 1986. “What is a Citation Worth?” The Journal of Human Resources 21 (2): 200–215.Google Scholar
Diamond, Arthur M. Jr. 2004. “Zvi Griliches's Contributions to the Economics of Technology and Growth.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 13 (4) (June): 365–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Arthur M. Jr. 2005. “Measurement, Incentives, and Constraints in Stigler's Economics of Science.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 12 (4) (Winter): 635–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Arthur M. Jr. 2006. “Schumpeter's Creative Destruction: A Review of the Evidence.” Journal of Private Enterprise 22 (1) (Fall): 149–161.Google Scholar
Diamond, Arthur M. Jr. 2007a. “The Neglect of Creative Destruction in Micro-principles Texts.” History of Economic Ideas 15 (1): 197–210.Google Scholar
Diamond, Arthur M. Jr. 2007b. “Thriving at Amazon: How Schumpeter Lives in Books Today.” Econ Journal Watch 4 (3) (September): 338–444.Google Scholar
Dogan, Mattei and Pahre, Robert. 1990. “Scholarly Reputation and Obsolescence in the Social Sciences: Innovation as a Team Sport.” International Social Science Journal 42 (3) (August): 417–427.Google Scholar
Drucker, Peter F. 1999. “Modern Prophets: Schumpeter or Keynes?” Reprinted in The Frontiers of Management. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc., Chapter 12, pp. 104–115 [originally published as: “Schumpeter and Keynes.”Forbes (May 23, 1983): 124–128].Google Scholar
Feldstein, Martin. 2003. “Why is Productivity Growing Faster?” Presented at January AEA meetings in Washington D.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfield, Eugene. Various. Social Sciences Citation Index. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Scientific Information.Google Scholar
Granstrand, Ove. 1994. “Economics of Technology—An Introduction and Overview of a Developing Field.” In Granstrand, Ove, ed., Economics of Technology. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Griliches, Zvi. 2000. R&D, Education and Productivity: A Retrospective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Bronwyn, Jaffe, Adam, and Trajtenberg, Manuel. 2000. “Market Value and Patent Citations: A First Look,” NBER Working Paper 774. [Also: University of California Dept. of Economics Working paper E01–304 (August). A briefer version was published, but doesn't contain the material cited here.]Google Scholar
Helburn, Suzanne W. and Bramhall, David F.. 1986. Marx, Schumpeter, and Keynes: A Centenary Celebration of Dissent. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. 1964. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World (first published in 1936).Google Scholar
Mansfield, Edwin. 1995. Innovation, Technology and the Economy: The Selected Essays of Edwin Mansfield, Vols. I and II. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Mokyr, Joel. 2002. “Review of William J. Baumol The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism”. Economic History Services, (July 26), URL: http://www.eh.net/bookreviews/library/0517.shtmlGoogle Scholar
Moss, Laurence S. 1996. “Introduction.” In Moss, , ed. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Historian of Economics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Nathan. 1982. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1981. “Schumpeter as an Economic Theorist.” In Frisch, Helmut, ed., Schumpeterian Economics. New York: Praeger, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 2003. “Reflections on the Schumpeter I Knew.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 13 (5) (December): 463–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd edition. New York: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1957. “Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated.” Journal of Political Economy, 65 (1): 1–17 [Reprinted in Stigler, G. J. (1965c). Essays in the History of Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 234–267; also reprinted in Luebe, K. R. and Moore, T. G., eds. (1986). The Essence of Stigler. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, pp. 265–288].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1976. “The Xistence of X-efficiency.” American Economic Review 66 (1976): 213–216.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1988. Memoirs of an Unregulated Economist. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wagener, H.-J. and Drukker, J. W.. 1986. The Economic Law of Motion of Modern Society: A Marx-Keynes-Schumpeter Centennial. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar